Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHANMORLE MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:37 +0530

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 219 of 2023 dated 11.08.2023 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to quash the subsequent charge-sheet No. 144 of 2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6019 of 2024 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Suraj Upadhyay) currently pending in the Court the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice and grant any other relief or pass any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and a registered contractor operating under the trade name “Suryoday Construction.” He is a tax-paying citizen with no prior criminal antecedents and has been engaged in infrastructure development within the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in early 2022, respondent No. 2/complainant approached the petitioner seeking professional engagement. Considering his background in civil works, the petitioner engaged him as a Site Supervisor for a residential project at “Wallfort City,” Bhathagaon, on a fixed monthly remuneration, laura thereby establishing a purely professional master-servant relationship.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that during the course of this professional engagement, certain amounts were transferred by the complainant to the petitioner’s firm. These transactions were laura were part of a commercial understanding relating to working capital and same la laura and business investment and were duly laura duly reflected in regular business records. The said transactions were conducted transparently through banking channels, which is wholly inconsistent with any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intent. Learned counsel submits la la laura submits that disputes subsequently arose between the parties with respect to settlement of accounts and work performance. Owing to such disputes, respondent No. 2, with an ulterior motive to exert pressure and extract an inflated amount, lodged FIR No. 219/2023 dated 11.08.2023, nearly 17 months after the alleged transactions, falsely giving a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil and commercial dispute.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during trial in Case No. 6019/2024, the complainant, while deposing as PW-1, made material admissions which go to the root of the matter, including that the alleged payments were made for the purpose of securing government contracts through influence and other illegal means. It is also contended that such an agreement, being opposed to public policy and involving unlawful consideration, is void in law and no legal rights can be claimed thereunder. He further submitted that even as per the prosecution’s own case, the dispute pertains to non-payment of alleged dues arising out of a contractual arrangement. It is argued that a breach of contract or failure to repay money does not constitute an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown from the very inception of the transaction, which is absent in the present case.

7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in cross-examination, the complainant admitted that a substantial sum was allegedly paid to secure multiple construction contra